re: Why not treat South Korea like we treated South Vietnam?Posted by vl100butch on 3/29/13 at 4:23 pm to Champagne

quote:that to me is going to be facinating, how many of the third worlders that make up the UN today actually realize there is a mandate for the defense of South Korea? and what happens when they find out that there is nothing they can do about it?

Could you clarify this point please, Butch? I don't completely follow you. Thanks.

sure, what I'm thinking is that a lot of the present membership of the UN is unaware of the Security Council Mandate from 1950 for the defense of South Korea that has never been turned off...the United Nations Command is still alive and in the Seoul area...

if the NK's start up round 2, there is going to be shock in a lot of UN offices when the realization hits that a UN mandate exists and even if the NK's paid them off to end said mandate, with the US veto in the Security Council...it's not happening!!!!!

re: Why not treat South Korea like we treated South Vietnam?Posted by NHTIGER on 3/29/13 at 4:43 pm to Champagne

quote: quote: Tough, mean and militarily superior, they scared the shite out of the VC and NVA more than our guys ever did.

I agree with everything you say, but, the South Vietnamese also fought side by side with our Soldiers in Vietnam.

Well, the ARVN's did so because they were defending their own terrain and their own families.

The ROK government was under no obligation to send troops. Once there, their soldiers and marines fought like they too were defending their own. Very admirable. They never got the credit or recognition they deserved here in the U.S., other than from the Vietnam Vets themselves, who knew only too well what a great ally they were.

re: Why not treat South Korea like we treated South Vietnam?Posted by Champagne on 3/29/13 at 4:51 pm to vl100butch

quote:if the NK's start up round 2, there is going to be shock in a lot of UN offices when the realization hits that a UN mandate exists and even if the NK's paid them off to end said mandate, with the US veto in the Security Council...it's not happening!!!!!

Thanks very much. Good point.

The UN is not good for very much, but, my gut feeling is that the UN would favor armed confrontation of a NK attack on SK.

re: Why not treat South Korea like we treated South Vietnam?Posted by Champagne on 3/29/13 at 4:56 pm to Helo

quote:You do realize that not only is South Korea an ally but also the USA's 7th largest trading partner, right?

Is your point that the USA should stand strong against malevolent dictators, especially when we can line our pockets by so doing? Because maybe that's why the US Congress abandoned South Vietnam -- we saw no way to line our pockets.

I don't believe you have found the key, because, I know that the US does not act only when it stands to line its own pockets -- the "No Blood for Oil" campaign in 1990 and 2003 taught me that we can expect Democrats to act out of pure altruism.

re: Why not treat South Korea like we treated South Vietnam?Posted by Champagne on 3/30/13 at 9:31 am to Helo

Here's the comparison.

In 1973, the USA and North Vietnam signed a Peace Accord. Simply put, the terms were that the USA would withdraw from SV. NV would not accelerate their campaign to conquer SV. Under the terms of the agreement, the USA would re-join the fight, if NV accelerated their military campaign in SV.

After the ink was barely dry, NV stepped up their offensive and conquered SV. The US Congress refused to honor the pledge to re-enter the fight, despite the fact that NV violate the agreement.

There were never any domestic political repercussions from this abandonment of SV.

Now, fast forward to today. The USA has a pledge and obligation to defend South Korea against their aggressive northern neighbor.

What's to stop the USA from abandoning South Korea?

If it was "OK" in a domestic political sense to abandon South Vietnam, could those same conditions replicate themselves today, such that, it would be "OK" for today's US politicians to leave South Korea to its fate?

re: Why not treat South Korea like we treated South Vietnam?Posted by Champagne on 3/30/13 at 9:47 am to CarrolltonTiger

quote:Seems like you are whinning about some pretty small change for DOD with a possible valubale return.

You raise good points for not abandoning South Korea.

However,

The USA had a written obligation to re-join the fight, should North Vietnam violate the terms of the agreement. The NVs did so with great gusto and success. The USA ignored its written obligation.

The written obligation binding the USA to the defense of South Vietnam was not predicated on whether re-joining the fight would be conditioned on whether the USA would economically benefit from re-joining the fight. I suppose that the written commitment was founded upon the altruistic notion that the USA does not abandon its allies. Well, if so, that particular notion was dispelled by subsequent US inaction.

If the price of US defense of South Korea was harm to the US economy, because of the enormous cost, would that change US commitment to SK?

We have seen that the USA did not act in accordance with its promises with regard to South Vietnam. Could the South Korean problem present circumstances whereby the USA would renege on promises to fight for South Korea?